News

newsobserver.com blogs

Under the Dome

Inside the Dome Who's who Polling central

Ad hits Burr on health care

A television advertising effort has been launched against Republican Sen. Richard Burr by two groups suppporting the president’s efforts to overhaul the health care system.

The ad campaign is being sponsored by Health Care for America Now, a coalition of groups backing President Barack Obama’s health care proposals and by the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, Rob Christensen reports. The ad, featuring a photo of Burr superimposed over the Capitol, says:

Why is Senator Burr taking the side of the insurance companies in the health care debate? Maybe he’s too comfortable. Members of Congress get good affordable health insurance. Better than most middle class families, who pay more for their health insurance and get less. Or because he’s taken 2.1 million dollars from the health care industry. Is that why he’s opposed to reforms that would lower costs for families and businesses and end insurance company abuses? Tell Senator Burr — side with us, not insurance company lobbyists.

The ad is part of a $650,000, five-day national ad campaign targeting Republican leadership in the House and the Senate and seven additional Republican members of Congress. Besides Burr, the state and regional ads taret Reps. Dave Camp of Michigan, Mark Kirk of Illinois, Patrick Tiberi of Ohio, Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan, Dave Reichert of Washington and John Boehner of Ohio.

UPDATE: The group plans to spend $95,000 on the Burr ad.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Re: Ad hits Burr on health care

Per the CBO the net cost of the 10 year bill is less than we spent on the banks.

Considering the President of the United States stated that he wants the legislation to be deficit neutral, a net cost less than $787 Billion dollars is absolutely unacceptable...

But on to your point and I guess I will play your game...

From H.R. 3200...

Advance Care Planning Consultation

`(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term `advance care planning consultation' means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:

`(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.

`(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.

`(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.

`(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal service organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of 1965).

`(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.

`(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include--

`(I) the reasons why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual's family and the reasons why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes;

`(II) the information needed for an individual or legal surrogate to make informed decisions regarding the completion of such an order; and

`(III) the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such individual resides so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if the individual is unable to communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decisionmaker (also known as a health care proxy).

`(ii) The Secretary shall limit the requirement for explanations under clause (i) to consultations furnished in a State--

`(I) in which all legal barriers have been addressed for enabling orders for life sustaining treatment to constitute a set of medical orders respected across all care settings; and

`(II) that has in effect a program for orders for life sustaining treatment described in clause (iii).

`(iii) A program for orders for life sustaining treatment for a States described in this clause is a program that--

`(I) ensures such orders are standardized and uniquely identifiable throughout the State;

`(II) distributes or makes accessible such orders to physicians and other health professionals that (acting within the scope of the professional's authority under State law) may sign orders for life sustaining treatment;

`(III) provides training for health care professionals across the continuum of care about the goals and use of orders for life sustaining treatment; and

`(IV) is guided by a coalition of stakeholders includes representatives from emergency medical services, emergency department physicians or nurses, state long-term care association, state medical association, state surveyors, agency responsible for senior services, state department of health, state hospital association, home health association, state bar association, and state hospice association.

`(2) A practitioner described in this paragraph is--

`(A) a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)); and

`(B) a nurse practitioner or physician's assistant who has the authority under State law to sign orders for life sustaining treatments.

`(3)(A) An initial preventive physical examination under subsection (WW), including any related discussion during such examination, shall not be considered an advance care planning consultation for purposes of applying the 5-year limitation under paragraph (1).

`(B) An advance care planning consultation with respect to an individual may be conducted more frequently than provided under paragraph (1) if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual, including diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or a hospice program.

`(4) A consultation under this subsection may include the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining treatment or a similar order.

`(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term `order regarding life sustaining treatment' means, with respect to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to the treatment of that individual that--

`(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care professional (as specified by the Secretary and who is acting within the scope of the professional's authority under State law in signing such an order, including a nurse practitioner or physician assistant) and is in a form that permits it to stay with the individual and be followed by health care professionals and providers across the continuum of care;

`(ii) effectively communicates the individual's preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual;

`(iii) is uniquely identifiable and standardized within a given locality, region, or State (as identified by the Secretary); and

`(iv) may incorporate any advance directive (as defined in section 1866(f)(3)) if executed by the individual.

`(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items--

`(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac or pulmonary problems;

`(ii) the individual's desire regarding transfer to a hospital or remaining at the current care setting;

`(iii) the use of antibiotics; and

`(iv) the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.'.

(2) PAYMENT- Section 1848(j)(3) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4(j)(3)) is amended by inserting `(2)(FF),' after `(2)(EE),'.

(3) FREQUENCY LIMITATION- Section 1862(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395y(a)) is amended--

(A) in paragraph (1)--

(i) in subparagraph (N), by striking `and' at the end;

(ii) in subparagraph (O) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting `, and'; and

(iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

`(P) in the case of advance care planning consultations (as defined in section 1861(hhh)(1)), which are performed more frequently than is covered under such section;'; and

(B) in paragraph (7), by striking `or (K)' and inserting `(K), or (P)'.

(4) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendments made by this subsection shall apply to consultations furnished on or after January 1, 2011.

(b) Expansion of Physician Quality Reporting Initiative for End of Life Care-

(1) Physician'S QUALITY REPORTING INITIATIVE- Section 1848(k)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4(k)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:

`(3) Physician'S QUALITY REPORTING INITIATIVE-

`(A) IN GENERAL- For purposes of reporting data on quality measures for covered professional services furnished during 2011 and any subsequent year, to the extent that measures are available, the Secretary shall include quality measures on end of life care and advanced care planning that have been adopted or endorsed by a consensus-based organization, if appropriate. Such measures shall measure both the creation of and adherence to orders for life-sustaining treatment.

`(B) PROPOSED SET OF MEASURES- The Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register proposed quality measures on end of life care and advanced care planning that the Secretary determines are described in subparagraph (A) and would be appropriate for eligible professionals to use to submit data to the Secretary. The Secretary shall provide for a period of public comment on such set of measures before finalizing such proposed measures.'.

(c) Inclusion of Information in Medicare & You Handbook-

(1) MEDICARE & YOU HANDBOOK-

(A) IN GENERAL- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall update the online version of the Medicare & You Handbook to include the following:

(i) An explanation of advance care planning and advance directives, including--

(I) living wills;

(II) durable power of attorney;

(III) orders of life-sustaining treatment; and

(IV) health care proxies.

(ii) A description of Federal and State resources available to assist individuals and their families with advance care planning and advance directives, including--

(I) available State legal service organizations to assist individuals with advance care planning, including those organizations that receive funding pursuant to the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 93001 et seq.);

(II) website links or addresses for State-specific advance directive forms; and

(III) any additional information, as determined by the Secretary.

(B) UPDATE OF PAPER AND SUBSEQUENT VERSIONS- The Secretary shall include the information described in subparagraph (A) in all paper and electronic versions of the Medicare & You Handbook that are published on or after the date that is 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.

First -

An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.

Who determines what "end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title."

Would the choices be made by one of President Obama's men - perhaps Ezekiel Emanuel.

A Hard-Charging Doctor on Obama’s Team

Who wrote this piece in 1996...

This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just alloca- tion of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future genera- tions, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example Is is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason.

Where Civic Republicanism and Deliberative Democracy Meet

I do not think that the people who are worried about "Death Panels" are very unfounded in their concerns considering the lack of clarity in the legislation. One would think that in over 1,000 pages that such clarifications could be found...

I also find it very interesting that in the entire legislation there is no mention of tort reform...how can we have health care reform with tort reform...

Re: Ad hits Burr on health care

The amount of misinformation is astounding. Would all of you trash talkers and generalizers either access the online copy of bill HR 3200 and quote facts or shut the hxx up. I would like to see honest discussion on the pros and cons of the possible bill not some crackpot yelling they're going to kill my grandpa, or It's going to break us. Per the CBO the net cost of the 10 year bill is less than we spent on the banks.

Re: Ad hits Burr on health care

I am 63, have a Blue Cross insurance policy and an HSA. Policy costs me a little over $200 a month to take care of major health issues.

Contributions to the HSA are 100% tax deductible and if I don't use the money this year, it is still there for the next one.

An 80/20 policy would cost me close over $800 a month. I fund my HSA in the first six months of the year.

What is wrong with that deal? Goes a long way towards making health care affordable. Puts me in control of how the money is spent.

Tort Reform is needed!

Currently, there are 18% of Americans under the age of 65 that do not have health insurance. There is an alarming growing number of people losing their health insurance, because of the recession and the general evolution of the manufacturing industry (outsourcing of jobs).

This means that there is roughly 82% of Americans that pay higher rates to cover the 18% that do not have health insurance.

The 18% can get still get quality health care by just going to the Emergency Room if necessary or other facilities at the expense of the federal government and the private insurance companies, which again uses increased rates on 82% of the population to cover this disparity.

So basically of the 82% not pleased with their current health care, which is very small, they merely want lower costs. So the idea that if everyone is covered than costs would be lower. I agree!

Why does 18% not have health insurance?

Can't afford it, don't think they need, or have preconditions that insurance companies won't cover...

Well I think we could make insurance rates more affordable by not requiring doctors to run 50 tests in order to make sure that their diagnosis is absolutely spot on, otherwise face a trial lawyer (John Edwards type) seeking to sue. If I were a doctor, I would do whatever it took to make sure my diagnosis is correct. How about let's do tort reform, because if doctors do not have to pay as much in malpractice insurance, then their rates would come down. If their rates come down, then the health insurance rates would come down and more Americans could afford it. The rest, well we already have Medicaid and Medicare in place, so let's continue those programs...

Democrats received over $178,691,485 from Trial Lawyers last year alone - I call that special interest...

Re: Ad hits Burr on health care

EVERYONE should stop their memberships in AARP! Its a socialist group whose mission is not friendly to the individual. I have REMOVED myself from them and forbid them to send me any mailers.

Tort reform is needed regardless of 'healthcare' which is NOT a RIGHT nor a FUNCTION of the US government.

Re: Ad hits Burr on health care

We need TORT reform

Thanks Paul. Maybe when the head of your party doesn't threaten to sue over being called gay in an email from members of your own party, you "conservatives" will have a point about frivolous lawsuits.

Re: Ad hits Burr on health care

Healthcare for American Now is the AARP and here is the skinny on the AARP. The AARP sells health insurance and is set to benefit in the $ Billions if the President's Government run healthcare passes. So who is in the pockets of Health Insurance? President Obama and the leadership in the Democratic Party.

OBTW I am not a mobster, un American or a agitator. I am simply a middle class American who opposes the destined failure of government run healthcare. We need TORT reform and to clean up Medicare and SS because they both go broke in less than 10 years and the Democrats are sitting on their hands. Attack me at will but atleast I am not under investigation like ACORN nor do I send dead fish to media types who disagree with me ( Rahm Emanuel).

Re: Ad hits Burr on health care

This is a waste. Burr is so deep in the pocket of the insurance industry that he'll never notice. His big contribution is promoting Health Saving Accounts to better "help" us pay for what his insurance company buddies won't cover like deductibles, co-payments, and the treatment your doctor said you needed but the clerk at BCBS decided wasn't necessary. Gee, thanks.

Cars View All
Find a Car
Go
Jobs View All
Find a Job
Go
Homes View All
Find a Home
Go
Advertisements